On 12/12/2011 2:35 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 13:01 -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> On 12/12/2011 12:24 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
>>> Please don't forget that this became an issue only after DNSWL policy
>>> change. At the time the DNSWL rules have been enabled by default in SA,
>>> there where no deliberately false listing responses.
>>
>> Not to belabor the point but according to the Internet Archive this
>> DNSWL policy change happened in October 2010, that is when the
>> website was changed.
>
> Back in Oct 2010 the policy has been changed, introducing the free usage
> limits and a subscription offer. However, the policy was "enforced" by
> blocking requests of abusive hosts only. Harmless, and will not result
> in FPs.
>
> The policy change we're discussing -- serving FP listings to excessive
> over-limit abusers -- was established just recently, Oct 17, 2011.
>
> If you want to see for yourself, please have a look at the DNSWL news,
> linked from their main site.
>
The text regarding high-use queries appeared on the website in
October 2010. Whether or not it's "enforced" by serving FP's to
excessive users is beside the point -
high-query users lost the right to use DNS as soon as that text
appeared. In other words the behavior of the whitelist at that
time changed from "everyone use us, please, commercial or
otherwise, the same way" to "some of you use us this way and others use
us that way" Knowing that SA was being used by both groups which
the whitelist was expecting different behavior from should have been
enough to turn off access to that list in the default config of SA.
it's no different than MAPS access -OK for some, not OK for others,
that too is defaulted to off.
The serving FPs is tangential. It has the action
of forcing behavior in SA that a year earlier would have been the
sensible thing to do.
Ted
>
>> SA 3.3.2 shipped June 2011 so it seems that there should have been
>> sufficient time to change the default.
>
> See above, off by one year.
>
> While the team arguably didn't react appropriately to the initial
> heads-up by Darxus just a few weeks ago, I stand to what I said.
>
>
>>> And I don't see anyone calling the users abusive. But the DNS servers.
>>> Which is causing collateral damage to some users.
>>
>> This is a mailing list mainly for SA administrators, users of SA in
>> this context are the administrators that install it, not the end users
>
> I did not say, neither imply anything else. With no word did I refer to
> end-users or clients -- frankly, in context the interpretation of
> "users" as "users of SA, people running the product" is the only one
> that makes sense. And is generally to be assumed in this place anyway.
> But thanks for stating the obvious.
>
>> using SA-enabled mailservers. And DNS servers don't just query for
>> no reason.
>
> DNS servers don't query for no reason, but because the admin chose to
> use it.
>
> Again, I stand to what I said. I have not seen anyone blaming users.
>
>